Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety And Prosecution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District Attorney asks Commissioners Court for more pay, staff and technology to retain prosecutors and investigators
Summary
District Attorney Mark Gonzales asked the court for roughly $500,000 in additional funding for salary increases, reclassifications, another violent‑crimes prosecutor, expanded victim services and updated technology, arguing pay lags and student‑loan burdens are driving staff departures; presenters said diversion programs are already saving jail costs.
District Attorney Mark Gonzales and his leadership team asked Commissioners Court to approve a substantial set of budget and personnel changes that they said are necessary to retain prosecutors, investigators and victim‑services staff.
Gonzales opened the presentation by framing the request: “I stand before you today as elected district attorney, and I hope not to get run out of town, but I'm going to be asking for an increase of about, over $500,000,” he said. Presenters detailed requests that include reclassifications for legal and victim‑services staff, salary increases to make pay more competitive with similar counties, funding for one additional violent‑crimes prosecutor, pay adjustments for investigators (who now perform complex investigations and mobile forensics) and rolling out technology updates (20 computers/tablets over two years, better TVs/Elmos for courtrooms and secure filing cabinets).
Kathy Mills, office administrator, described an immediate need for a stronger victim‑services unit and argued the office requires at least three victim advocates to serve felony and misdemeanor dockets. "We have fewer victim advocates than CCPD does," Mills said, asking for another advocate and higher pay for existing VACs. Shera Rodriguez, the office’s victim assistance coordinator, told the court that low pay limits recruitment and retention, and that newly recruited licensed counselors face retention pressure because private‑sector pay is higher.
Matt Manning and other speakers emphasized that prosecutors and investigators carry heavy student‑loan burdens (the office sampled roughly $3.8 million in student debt among half the office) and that a low applicant pool for higher‑level prosecutor posts underscores a pay problem: several recent hires left for higher pay elsewhere. Prosecutor Crystal Mathis and appellate chief Doug Norman described how institutional knowledge is at risk when experienced attorneys depart.
The presentation also noted cost‑saving programs the office runs — cite‑and‑release and diversion programs — that reduced jail days and produced early savings (the DA reported 210 cite‑and‑release citations in two months that equated to about $17,000 saved in custody costs). Presenters said federal and state forfeiture and pretrial diversion accounts currently fund several positions but cautioned those revenue streams vary by year.
Commissioners asked the office to provide county comparisons for pay scales and to work with court administration on phased implementation options for any raises. No final vote was taken; the court asked staff to fold the DA’s requests into the shared revision and to return with comparative salary data and staged funding options.
